|Publication number||US7095496 B2|
|Application number||US 10/317,898|
|Publication date||Aug 22, 2006|
|Filing date||Dec 12, 2002|
|Priority date||Dec 12, 2001|
|Also published as||US7215419, US7224450, US20030147070, US20060146321, US20060164632, WO2003050514A2, WO2003050514A3|
|Publication number||10317898, 317898, US 7095496 B2, US 7095496B2, US-B2-7095496, US7095496 B2, US7095496B2|
|Inventors||Abdurrahman Sezginer, Kenneth Johnson, Adam E. Norton, Holger A. Tuitje|
|Original Assignee||Tokyo Electron Limited|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (22), Referenced by (6), Classifications (12), Legal Events (5)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This application claims priority to, and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of, applications No. 60/339,628, filed Dec. 12, 2001, and No. 60/369,475, filed Apr. 2, 2002.
This invention relates to the field of metrology, and more particularly to optical metrology calibration.
There is considerable interest across several industries in developing metrology systems for precisely and accurately measuring physical properties of surfaces, and thin films deposited on surfaces. Optical techniques are often preferable because they can be performed during a manufacturing process without contacting a test article. Typically, an apparatus measures light before and after interacting with a test surface. Surface properties may then be inferred according to a theory of the interaction and an understanding of the operating principles of the apparatus.
To be useful, a metrology system must be precise as well as accurate. Precision refers to a capability to make fine measurements. Accuracy, in contrast, refers a difference between a value obtained from measurement and a true value of the physical property being measured. Generally, a highly precise system is not necessarily highly accurate.
Obtaining high accuracy typically requires understanding system characteristics both theoretically and through calibration. In many applications, however, detailed characterization of the entire measurement system is difficult, or impractical, or simply unwarranted by the desired accuracy of the measurement. Thus, high precision measurements are often not as accurate as they could be because a user interprets a measured signal with a technique that simplifies the operating principles of the measuring apparatus.
Two trends in the semiconductor industry point to a need for improved calibration techniques. First, there is an ever-present trend toward higher measurement accuracy arising from demands for thinner films and more stringent process standards. For example, the currently recommended upper bound on uncertainty in reflectivity measurements is 0.1%.
Second, there is an important trend toward integrating process and metrology tools by locating metrology tools closer to manufacturing process lines. Presently, most metrology systems “stand alone,” physically removed from the process tools. Away from the process line, space is not at an economic premium. Accordingly, most “stand-alone” metrology systems opt for immovable optical heads and motion stages that move a test article under the optics. Fixed to a massive frame, the optical systems of stand-alone devices are stable over long periods of time. In contrast, integrating metrology and process tools drives designs having movable optics because space is at a premium near the process line and movable optics significantly reduce the size of a metrology device's “footprint.” As compared to fixing the optical head and moving the test article, however, moving the optical head over the test surface requires closer attention to the manner and frequency of calibration because of the movements.
Two examples of common approaches to calibration illustrate the technical problem addressed by this invention. One simple calibration method regards that a signal S relates to a physical quantity of interest Q by:
S=αQ (Eqn. 1)
In Eqn. 1, α contains information from the measurement system and Q is the physical quantity of interest. With this simple relationship between the signal and the quantity of interest, one can remove the information relating to the measurement system and arrive at a relative determination of Q by taking the ratio of two independent measurements
Comparing the two equations, above, the factor α dropped out in Eqn. 2. Thus, if a relative determination of the desired quantity suffices for the purposes of the measurement, it is not necessary to know the characteristics of the measurement system embodied in the factor α, including any position-dependencies.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,747,813 exemplifies the approach, above, by teaching a method for determining a relative reflectance of a wafer with dual beam reflectometer. See col. 2, lines 31-41. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,747,813, knowledge about the reflectometer characteristics, such as optical efficiencies, detector gains and noise is not necessary to arrive at a relative reflectivity of the wafer. Such information “drops out” because of the ratio, above. Relative reflectivity is useful, for example, in monitoring process consistency on a wafer-to-wafer basis. For an absolute determination, U.S. Pat. No. 5,747,813 teaches further use of ratios to reference to a known standard. See col. 2, lines 31-41.
Relative measurements are simple, convenient and adequate for some uses. Often, however, a measurement system behaves in a more complicated manner than Eqn. 1 suggests. For example, one may interpret a signal S as relating to a physical quantity of interest Q by:
S=αQ+β (Eqn. 3)
In Eqn. 3, α and β both relate to the measurement system. Comparing Eqn. 3 to Eqn. 1, just one additional factor, β, disallows simply forming a ratio from two experiments to remove the information about the measurement system. The factors relating to the measurement system simply do not drop out from a ratio.
In curve fitting, one presupposes a mathematical form of a family of curves and determines coefficients that fit data points “best.” Common mathematical forms include polynomials, often with many terms.
Therefore, because of new demands for movable optical systems with position-dependent characteristics and a continuing broad demand for greater accuracy, there is a need for calibration techniques and associated components that enable detailed, position-dependent characterization of a metrology system.
The present invention is a calibration method and related apparatus that are suitable for highly precise and highly accurate surface metrology measurements. In a typical measurement, a wafer inspection tool with a polychromatic light source generates a probe beam, which illuminates a sample. A detector measures the probe beam after reflection from the sample. The inspection tool includes an optics system for directing the probe beam onto the sample, with the optics system being movable over the wafer to scan measurement points on the wafer.
In a preferred embodiment, a calibration wafer is measured over a range of different wavelengths at each of a plurality of different positions of the optics system. Then, variations in measurement parameters at a plurality of discreet wavelengths are determined. The variations are a direct result of moving the optics system. After determining and storing position and wavelength related calibration information based on such variations, the calibration information can be used to correct for position variations of the optics system when measuring a test wafer.
In another preferred embodiment, a portion of an optical metrology apparatus moves over a plurality of positions relative to a test article holder, changing a measurement location over the test article holder. Then, calibration signals over the plurality of positions with the optical metrology apparatus are produced. At each position, the calibration signals contain information over a range of wavelengths. By comparing the calibration signals to a model of signals produced by the metrology apparatus including a set of position-dependant parameters characterizing the optical metrology apparatus, one determines values for the position-dependant parameters at a plurality of discreet wavelength values. With values for the position-dependant parameters, other data from wafers with unknown metrology can be determined.
In these and other preferred embodiments, a portion of the calibration involves placing a reference element in an optical path of a probe beam such that specular reflections of the probe beam off of a surface of the reference element are directed outside the collection angle. Light relating to a background light level is then sensed with a detector of the metrology apparatus. The reference element is preferably black glass. Other reflective materials are also possible. In different embodiments, such reference elements may be coupled to a wafer, or a chuck, or another support structure. In still other embodiments, a plurality of elongated reference elements of differing reference characteristics are coupled to the chuck, thereby, providing a unitary calibration structure with a range of reference characteristics that may be sequentially scanned over the range of motion of the movable optics system.
One example of the use of a reference element in association with a chuck is disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2002/0159054, assigned to the same assignee as herein and incorporated by reference.
I. Calibration Method
The present invention is a calibration method suitable for highly precise and highly accurate surface metrology measurements. In preferred embodiments, an optical inspection tool including a movable optics system is characterized in terms of position-dependent quantities over a range of motion. Once the position-dependant quantities are determined, they are stored and used to interpret data from test wafers having an unknown metrology. Free of position-dependent variations and other information pertaining to the measurement system, the accuracy of the resulting wafer measurement more closely matches the precision of the tool than existing techniques.
To calibrate a tool according to a preferred embodiment, at least one calibration sample is measured at each of a plurality of different positions of the movable optics system. Characteristic quantities of the tool and their position dependence are then determined by comparing the calibration data to a computational model of signals produced by the calibration samples and the measurement instrument. The model of signals may depend linearly or non-linearly on the reflectance of the sample, depending on the desired accuracy and complexity of the tool's operation. In some preferred embodiments, an over determined system of equations result from comparing the measurements on a multitude of calibration samples to the model of signals. The tool's operating characteristics are determined by solving the system of equations at the discreet wavelengths and positions of the movable parts of the instrument. Once the tool's behavior is determined at the discreet positions and wavelengths, one may infer behavior over a continuous range by interpolation or curve fitting.
Embodiments with a dual beam optical system for determining surface reflectivity are convenient for illustration purposes. No limitation to such a system, however, is implied. Alternate embodiments include but are not limited to: single beam reflectometers, such as in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/290,730, filed Nov. 7, 2002 which is herein incorporated in its entirety by reference; reduced polarization spectrometers, such as in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2002/0021441, published Feb. 21, 2002, which is herein incorporated in its entirety by reference; ellipsometers, scatterometers; and profilometers. Likewise, while particular embodiments of chucks and calibration articles are described below for illustration purposes, no limitation to such embodiments is implied.
Supposing that detectors 230 and 240 in
S=(signal when light source is off)+(signal due to light from the source that has interacted with the test article)+(signal due to light from the source that has not interacted with the test article) (Eqn. 4)
In Eqn. 4, the detector signal with the light source turned off or shuttered is, the dark signal. Depending on the design of the instrument, the dark signal may be due to ambient light, leakage current generated by thermal excitation in the detector, imperfections in the double correlated sampler, or an offset voltage that is intentionally applied to the input of the analog-to-digital converter. To determine the dark signal, one blocks the light from the light source with a shutter and records a signal. Turning off the power to the light source would give the same information but it is not preferred because the stability of the light source may be affected. According to standard practices in the art, the dark signal is stored and subtracted from subsequent signals. Many commercially available detectors are thermally controlled, making the dark signal very nearly constant over time and easily removed by subtraction. The last term in Eqn. 4, so called bright background, is caused by light reflecting off the interfaces of optic components of the instrument and reaching the detector without interacting with the test article. For example, if there is a window between the test article and the instrument, light reflecting off the window can be detected. The bright background is stronger for instruments where illumination and detection beams have a common path.
A signal from reflected light detector 240, after subtracting the dark signal, may be written as:
S 240 =g 240 I source [R 250 A 240+(BG)240,R=0] (Eqn. 5)
In Eqn. 5, the first term is from light from the source that has interacted with test article 250 and then reached the detector; and the second term is the bright background. The factor g240 in Eqn. 5 represents detector gain, which may or may not be adjustable. Isource is the intensity of the light source and R250 is the reflectance of the test article 250. This invention is equally applicable to a measurement where light is transmitted through the test article 250. In that case R250 is replaced by the transmittance of test article 250. The factor A240 in Eqn. 5 characterizes an aspect of the measurement system. It is the optical efficiency of the light path from the light source 210 interacting with the test article 250 and reaching detector 240. It may depend on geometrical factors, wavelength, and absorbance of optical components of the instrument. The factor (BG)240,R=0 is the optical efficiency of the light path from light source 210 to detector 240 that does not interact with sample 250.
Similarly, a signal from light source monitoring detector 230 may be rewritten, with the dark signal subtracted, as:
S 230 =g 230 I source A 230 (Eqn. 6)
In some embodiments, an entire optical system may move over a test article. In other embodiments, a subsystem may move. In embodiments including a fiber optic element, position-dependencies may arise from bending or other collateral perturbations to the fiber optic as other elements move. Moreover, such effects relating to the fiber may cause the most significant position-dependent effects. In such implementations A230, A240, (BG)240,R=0 are position and wavelength dependent.
A well-known advantage of a dual beam system is that, to an excellent approximation, the intensity of light source 230, including any temporal fluctuations, may be cancelled by taking a ratio of signals from the two beams that originate at the source. This is strictly so if the ratio is formed by measurements made at the same instant, and nearly so if the ratio is formed by measurements made in quick succession. Thus, taking a ratio of signals from the two detectors:
If detectors 230 and 240 in
F0 and F1 are stable properties of the instrument:
The subscripts sample and reference on A and BG in Eqn. 9-10 emphasize that the sample and reference measurements may be performed at different positions. The position of the reference reflector is fixed; therefore, a quantity such as (A240/A240)reference is a fixed attribute of the instrument. F0 and F1 depend on the position of the sample and the wavelength but they are unaffected by fluctuations in the intensity of light source 210, drift in the gains of detectors 230 and 240, or changes in sample 250. They are intrinsic and stable properties of the instrument.
Compared to many prior art techniques, accounting for the measurement system's characteristics as shown above is an improvement. Comparing Eqn. 8 to Eqn. 1, the ratio of signals from the detectors equals the surface reflectivity if and only if F1=1 and F0=0. Thus, ratio methods such as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,747,813 are not applicable when there is a bright background. In different embodiments, Eqns. 5-10 take many functional forms ranging from simple to complex. For example, multiple reflections between the sample 250 and interfaces of internal optical components of the instrument can make the instrument weakly nonlinear. Spurious light reaching from the test article to the intensity monitor 230 also causes a weak non-linearity. In that case, the right hand side of Eqn. 8 becomes F0+F1R+F2R2+F3R3+. . .
In preferred embodiments, at least a portion of the optical system moves over measurement points on a test article and the light source is multi-chromatic. In a preferred embodiment, a chuck rotates a test wafer and an optical head moves along a radius of the wafer, r. In alternative embodiments, an optical head moves over a test wafer surface in two dimensions. See (x, y) in
Instrument parameters F1 and F0 are determined by measuring calibration samples at a plurality of different positions of the optical system. The calibration samples have well-understood properties such as reflectance or film thickness. Moreover, the calibration samples span an adequate range of the property. For example, it is preferred to calibrate over the range 0≦R≦1 for reflectivity. Thus, calibration samples typically include both highly reflective and non-reflective elements. As further described below, examples of calibration samples include surfaces of bare silicon or other elements, a total absorber such as tilted pieces of black glass or stacked razor blades, or well-defined thin film layers such as 50 nm or 100 nm thermal oxides on silicon. Typically, the calibration samples are the same size as the test articles to be measured after calibration.
The following three embodiments of the calibration method as applied to a dual beam system are convenient for illustration purposes. No limitation to these embodiments, however, is implied. Different embodiments can be developed without departing from the scope of the invention.
In a preferred embodiment, F1 and F0 are determined by using two calibration samples: a non-reflecting sample and a well-characterized bright calibration sample such as a bare silicon wafer:
The reflectance of the well-characterized bright calibration sample, R(Bare Si) in Eqn. 12, is calculated from known indices of refraction of the materials that make up the calibration sample.
In another embodiment, F1 and F0 are determined by minimizing a vector norm in an over-determined system of equations arising from Eqn. 8, or an equivalent expression. In a particular embodiment, for example, measurements of reflectivity are made at a plurality of positions of the movable optics over each of two or more calibration samples. In this embodiment, the surface reflectivity is well known over the entire surface of each calibration sample. With two unknowns, F1 and F0, at each position of the movable optics, the system of equations arising from Eqn. 8 is over-determined with measurements on more than two calibration samples. The fit error,
is minimized with respect to F1 and F0 separately at each position r and wavelength λ. Since F1 and F0 are intrinsic properties of the instrument, they are the same for each sample. Eqn. 13 corresponds to minimizing L2-norm of the fit error. Although many other norms such as the L1-norm is possible, the L2-norm is preferred because it leads to a non-iterative solution by using the standard linear least-squares technique in linear algebra. The results are two-dimensional maps of the instrument functions F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r). The advantages of this embodiment are that there is no need for a zero-reflectance calibration sample; the inaccuracy in the knowledge of the properties of any particular calibration sample affects the calibration to a smaller extent when many calibration samples are used. A disadvantage of this embodiment is that characterizing the calibration samples over their entire surfaces and storing such information together with the calibration samples does not lead to an efficient process.
In this embodiment, calibration samples are allowed to have few unknown parameters. For example, a calibration sample that consists of a SiO2 film deposited on a silicon wafer may have 5% thickness variation over the wafer. Let q denote the vector, or list, of unknown parameters of the calibration samples. Three or more calibration samples allow determination of F1(λ,r), F0(λ,r) and q by minimizing the following expression:
F0 and F1 for all wavelengths and the parameters q are determined together in one minimization operation per position r. The minimization is repeated for each position. The minimization with respect to the parameters q (for example film thickness) requires non-linear least-squares minimization. An efficient algorithm minimizes χcal 2(r) in Eqn. 14 alternately with respect to q and then with respect to F0 and F1. The reason this algorithm is efficient is that for fixed q, the minimization with respect to F0 and F1 is a linear algebra problem that does not require iteration. For fixed F0 and F1, minimization with respect to q uncouples for each sample, i.e., the parameters of each sample can be updated independently of the others. The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm is preferred for minimizing χcal 2 (r) with respect to q. Many other non-linear least-squares algorithms are possible. The algorithm then updates F0 and F1 by the linear least-squares method holding q fixed; and then updates q holding F0 and F1 fixed; and so on. The results of the minimization are two-dimensional maps of F1(λ,r), F0(λ,r) and the maps of parameters q(r) over the parts of the calibration wafers that are scanned. This embodiment is most complex in computation but it leads to the most practical calibration process. A zero-reflectance sample is not required. The thickness of the films on the calibration samples need not be known. All that is required of the calibration samples are that they are sufficiently distinct from each other, and their optical response is accurately represented by a model that has few adjustable parameters.
As described above, the primary results of the minimization are maps of F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r) over discreet sets of wavelengths and positions. In subsequent measurements, the values of the instrument calibration functions are needed at other positions and wavelengths. In that case, the calibration functions F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r) are interpolated from the stored discreet values. In a preferred embodiment, polynomials are fitted to F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r):
F j(λ,r)=a j0(λ)+a j1(λ)r+a j2(λ)r 2 +. . . +a jN(λ)r N +. . . ; j=1,2 (Eqn. 15)
where the degree of the polynomial, N, is typically less than 10. Eqn. 15 treats r as a single variable. The polynomial in Eqn. 15 is replaced by a two-dimensional polynomial if the stage position r=(x, y) is two-dimensional. A separate set of polynomial coefficients are calculated at each wavelength. The advantage of this approach is that outliers due to particles on the window are flagged as poorly fitting points in the polynomial fit. Another advantage is that only polynomial coefficients need be stored. This takes less storage compared to storing discreet values of F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r). Many other embodiments such as spline fits are possible.
Once the measurement system is characterized by knowledge of F0 and F1, the information can be used to account or correct for position-dependencies when measuring test articles with unknown physical properties. Eqn. 8 may be used to solve for reflectance of test articles, with F0 and F1 as known quantities:
Parameters qtest of the test article can be determined by minimizing the fit error
In Eqn. 17, Rmod el(λ; qtest) is a computational model of the optical response of the test article with adjustable parameters qtest. The weighting function W2 (λ) is used to maximize the repeatability of the estimates of qtest. Preferably, W−2 (λ) is the statistical variance of Rtest(λ). The search for a minimum goes according to any of several well-known algorithms, such as the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. As in the calibration, a variety of vector norms may be used in different embodiments, such as the L1-norm. In preferred embodiments, the calculated Rmod el(λ; qtest) accounts for the numerical aperture and the point-spread-function of the spectrometer used in the instrument.
II. Chuck and Wafer with Calibration Reference Portions
The present invention is a calibration method suitable for highly precise and highly accurate surface metrology measurements. The method typically includes taking measurements of a non-reflective calibration reference over a plurality of positions of a movable optical system. With a non-reflective calibration reference, detector signals can measure background light arising from spurious reflections, scattering, and other mechanisms.
As described above, the movable optical system typically has a head portion with a scanning range including all locations where metrology measurements are to be made on a test article. In preferred embodiments, the optical head of the instrument scans in one dimension, r, and the test article is a wafer held by a chuck that rotates by an angle θ, allowing measurements to be made at different locations over the wafer.
For a thorough calibration, it is preferred to have the absorber accessible over the entire range of motion of the optical head. Absorber 302 embedded in chuck 300, however, cannot completely lie within the range of motion of the optical head because the chuck's dimensions are often smaller than the dimension of the test article. See FIG. 3. Therefore, extension absorber 304 extends beyond the chuck surface out to a full radius of a test wafer. Typically, the movable optics scan at least that far.
In an alternative embodiment, the optical head of the metrology instrument scans in two dimension, (x, y), to make measurements at different locations on a test article. In this case, referring to
In alternative embodiments, calibration samples other than the absorbing sample are coupled to the chuck. For example, in
In alternative embodiments, the movable optical head can scan in two dimensions and the chuck can be rotated. In this case, referring to
As an alternative to being mounted on a chuck, the non-reflective calibration reference may be coupled to a calibration wafer. However, for integrated metrology applications, a calibration wafer with a non-reflective portion may be less desirable than a chuck as described above because such a wafer may be unsuited for standard handling equipment, or may introduce particles into the process environment.
When on a wafer, black glass is arrayed and secured as shown in FIG. 9 and
III. Working Example
In the preceding description, a dual beam optical system for determining surface reflectivity illustrated several embodiments of the invention. The invention, however, is not limited to the above illustrations. The following working example refers to single beam embodiments, such as described in U.S. patent application No. 10/290,730, filed Nov. 7, 2002, which is incorporated in its entirety by reference.
In this example, the single beam system differs from the dual beam system illustrated in
In typical embodiments, the light source includes a broadband spectral lamp coupled to an optical fiber and collimating lenses. Reflected light detector 240 is typically a solid-state array detector, such as a diode array or a charge-coupled device (CCD) array, coupled to a spectrograph.
In the following, reflective surface 250 is a calibration wafer held by a rotatable chuck having non-reflective portions. See
In an exemplary embodiment, a calibration proceeds as follows. First, movable optical system 200 is positioned over reference reflector 260. A dark spectrum is recorded after first closing a shutter; then a lamp monitor spectrum is recorded with the shutter open and a mirror positioned between beam splitter 220 and the reference reflector. A dark-corrected spectrum is calculated immediately. In certain embodiments, one or more pixels at an end of the array detector also measure the diffuse scattering in the spectrometer for subtraction. The mirror is then removed from the optical path and, a short time after the lamp monitor spectrum is collected, the preceding steps are repeated to measure the light reflected back from the reference reflector. The spectra from the lamp and the reference reflector are stored for further use.
Second, movable optical system 200 is positioned over chuck 600, which has non-reflective portions. See FIG. 6. Following a schedule, data are serially collected at a plurality of positions over a range of motion of the optical system. Typically, the optical system moves a few millimeters between calibration positions. The data collection at each calibration position is as described in the preceding paragraph. A dark spectrum is collected, followed by a spectrum with a mirror in the optical path. The process is repeated in quick succession with the mirror out of the optical path. Scattering in the spectrometer is also recorded for subtraction. Then, the optical system moves on to a new position until the schedule of positions is finished.
Third, one or more calibration references are measured in a series. A calibration reference is placed on the chuck 600 and, following a schedule and the procedure as above, data are collected at a plurality of positions over the chuck. As described, the range of motion may be less than in the case of measuring over the non-reflective portions of the chuck.
After the number of independent measurements on the calibration references and the non-reflective chuck portions are sufficient in number to adequately determine the mathematical problem, the optical system moves to the reference reflector again and repeats the earlier measurements.
Typically, enough data are collected to over-determine the mathematical solution of the calibration problem. The data, along with the known physical quantities of the calibration references and non-reflective chuck portions, are inputs to minimizing Eqn. 13, or Eqn. 14, or Eqn. 17, or an equivalent, over discreet sets of wavelengths and positions. The result of the minimization is F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r), as discreet maps at the calibration wavelengths and points. In subsequent measurements, the values of the instrument calibration functions are needed at other positions and wavelengths. Therefore, the calibration functions F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r) at those points are interpolated from the stored discreet values. In preferred embodiments, however, continuous functions are fitted to the discreet map for F0 and F1. The continuous fits to the discreet calibration results for F1(λ,r) and F0(λ, r) are then stored for use in interpreting data taken from test articles with unknown properties.
Measurements on the test articles, or wafers, proceed as described above for the calibration references. Once data are collected, they can be interpreted according to Eqn. 13, or Eqn. 14, or Eqn. 17, or equivalents. In these calculations, however, F1(λ,r) and F0(λ,r) are known by the calibration maps themselves or the fits, and the minimization problem varies quantities that relate to the wafer under test. The results in terms of reflectivity or film thickness are free of position-dependent variations and other information pertaining to the measurement system. Thus, the accuracy of the wafer measurement can approach the precision of the tool.
It should be appreciated that in accordance with the subject technique, calibration information is measured and stored as a function of both position and wavelength. This calibration information at individual wavelengths and positions is then used to improve the measurement. In an earlier prior art version of the tool manufactured and sold by the assignee herein, calibration information was measured as a function of position but the wavelength information was merely summed or integrated and stored. No attempts were made to calibrate the system based on a combination of independent wavelength and independent position information.
As is readily apparent to a skilled person, the invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments. Rather, different configurations and embodiments can be developed without departing from the scope of the invention and are intended to be included within the scope of the claims set forth below. Moreover, instructions for the full scope of method embodiments may be inscribed according to well-known techniques onto tangible articles of manufacture, including but not limited to magnetic disks and tapes; optical disks; and non-volatile memory chips. When executed by a computer processor, the instructions cause a computer to perform the methods.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US3999866 *||Jun 27, 1975||Dec 28, 1976||International Business Machines Corporation||Wafer test system with integrated calibration|
|US4046474 *||Nov 17, 1975||Sep 6, 1977||Rockwell International Corporation||Black-body wafer support fixture for exposure of photoresist|
|US4386850 *||Dec 23, 1980||Jun 7, 1983||Rca Corporation||Calibration device and method for an optical defect scanner|
|US5004340 *||Apr 27, 1988||Apr 2, 1991||Hewlett-Packard Company||Calibration target for surface analysis scanner systems|
|US5129724 *||Jan 29, 1991||Jul 14, 1992||Wyko Corporation||Apparatus and method for simultaneous measurement of film thickness and surface height variation for film-substrate sample|
|US5144363 *||Jan 24, 1991||Sep 1, 1992||Asm Lithography B.V.||Apparatus for and method of projecting a mask pattern on a substrate|
|US5144524||Jan 22, 1991||Sep 1, 1992||Hewlett-Packard Company||Light trap for blocking reflection and scattering of light|
|US5321495||Jul 29, 1992||Jun 14, 1994||Horiba, Ltd.||Optical detecting system for determining particle position on a substrate|
|US5355212 *||Jul 19, 1993||Oct 11, 1994||Tencor Instruments||Process for inspecting patterned wafers|
|US5383018 *||Dec 28, 1992||Jan 17, 1995||National Semiconductor Corporation||Apparatus and method for calibration of patterned wafer scanners|
|US5486701 *||Mar 28, 1994||Jan 23, 1996||Prometrix Corporation||Method and apparatus for measuring reflectance in two wavelength bands to enable determination of thin film thickness|
|US5502564 *||Sep 13, 1994||Mar 26, 1996||Hughes Aircraft Company||Substrate thickness measurement using oblique incidence multispectral interferometry|
|US5889593 *||Feb 26, 1997||Mar 30, 1999||Kla Instruments Corporation||Optical system and method for angle-dependent reflection or transmission measurement|
|US6078042 *||Sep 5, 1996||Jun 20, 2000||Infrared Engineering Limited||Calibration standard for infrared absorption gauge|
|US6384408 *||Aug 11, 1999||May 7, 2002||Kla-Tencor Corporation||Calibration of a scanning electron microscope|
|US6405101 *||Nov 5, 1999||Jun 11, 2002||Novellus Systems, Inc.||Wafer centering system and method|
|US6563586 *||Jul 10, 2000||May 13, 2003||Therma-Wave, Inc.||Wafer metrology apparatus and method|
|US6743646 *||Oct 22, 2001||Jun 1, 2004||Timbre Technologies, Inc.||Balancing planarization of layers and the effect of underlying structure on the metrology signal|
|US6771374 *||Jan 16, 2002||Aug 3, 2004||Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.||Scatterometry based measurements of a rotating substrate|
|JPH0247823A||Title not available|
|JPH04158540A||Title not available|
|JPS6430242A||Title not available|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US7224450 *||Feb 28, 2006||May 29, 2007||Tokyo Electron Limited||Method and apparatus for position-dependent optical metrology calibration|
|US8406918||Mar 26, 2013||WD Media, LLC||Master teaching jig|
|US9436316 *||Mar 20, 2014||Sep 6, 2016||Wistron Corporation||Jig and calibration method|
|US20060164632 *||Feb 28, 2006||Jul 27, 2006||Tokyo Electron Limited||Method and apparatus for position-dependent optical metrology calibration|
|US20110153061 *||Jun 23, 2011||Wd Media, Inc.||Master Teaching Jig|
|US20150153899 *||Mar 20, 2014||Jun 4, 2015||Wistron Corporation||Jig and calibration method|
|U.S. Classification||356/241.1, 356/394, 356/237.2|
|International Classification||G01N21/27, G01N21/88, G01N21/95|
|Cooperative Classification||G01N21/274, G01N21/9501, G01N21/278, G01N21/93|
|European Classification||G01N21/27E, G01N21/95A|
|Mar 31, 2003||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: THERMA-WAVE, INC., CALIFORNIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SEZGINER, ABDURRAHMAN;JOHNSON, KENNETH;NORTON, ADAM E.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:013898/0317;SIGNING DATES FROM 20021218 TO 20030109
|Oct 7, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: TOKYO ELECTRON LIMITED, JAPAN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:THERMA-WAVE, INC.;REEL/FRAME:016851/0953
Effective date: 20050927
|Oct 24, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: TOKYO ELECTRON LIMITED, JAPAN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:THERMA-WAVE, INC.;REEL/FRAME:017136/0621
Effective date: 20050927
|Jan 29, 2010||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Jan 22, 2014||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 8